THOUGHTS ON DANIEL by U. Smith

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Aug 25, 1881

THOUGHTS ON DANIEL.

By U. Smith

BY ELD. U. SMITH.

CHAPTER II.—THE GREAT IMAGE.

VERSE 41. And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. 42. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.

THE element of weakness symbolized by the clay, pertains to the feet equally with the toes. Rome, before its division into ten kingdoms, lost that iron tenacity which it possessed to a superlative degree during the first centuries of its career. Luxury, with its accompanying effeminacy and degeneracy, the destroyer of nations as well as of individuals, began to corrode and weaken its iron sinews, and thus prepared the way for its subsequent disruption into ten kingdoms.

The iron legs of the image terminate, to maintain its consistency with the ordinary operations of nature, in feet and toes. To the toes, of which there were of course just ten, our attention is called by the explicit mention of them in the prophecy; and the kingdom represented by that portion of the image to which the toes belonged, was finally divided into ten parts. The question therefore naturally arises, Do the ten toes of the image represent the ten divisions of the Roman Empire? To those who prefer what seems to be a natural and straightforward interpretation of the word of God, it is a matter of no little astonishment that any question should be raised here. To take the ten toes to represent the ten kingdoms into which Rome was divided, is so easy, consistent, and natural, that it requires a labored effort to interpret it otherwise. Yet such an effort is made by some—by Romanists universally, and by such Protestants as still cling to Romish errors.

A volume by H. Cowles, D. D., may perhaps best be taken as a representative exposition on this side of the question. The writer gives every evidence of extensive erudition and great ability. It is the more to be regretted, therefore, that these powers are devoted to the propagation of error, and to misleading the anxious inquirer who wishes to know his whereabouts on the great highway of time.

We can but briefly notice his positions. They are, 1. That the third kingdom was Grecia only during the lifetime of Alexander. 2. That the fourth kingdom was Alexander's successors. 3. That the latest point to which the fourth kingdom could extend, is the manifestation of the Messiah; for, 4. There the God of Heaven set up his kingdom; there the stone smote the image upon its feet, and commenced the process of grinding it up.

Nor can we reply to any great length to these positions.

1. We might as well confine the Babylonian Empire to the single reign of Nebuchadnezzar, or that of Persia to the reign of Cyrus, as to confine the third kingdom, Grecia, to the reign of Alexander.

2. Alexander's successors did not constitute another kingdom, but a continuation of the same, or Grecian division of the image. For in this prophecy, the succession of kingdoms is by conquest. When Persia had conquered Babylon, we had the second empire, and when Grecia had conquered Persia, we had the third. But Alexander's successors (his four leading generals) did not conquer his empire and erect another in its place; they simply divided among themselves the empire which Alexander had conquered and left ready to their hand.

“Chronologically,” says Prof. C., “the fourth empire must immediately succeed Alexander, and lie entirely between him and the birth of Christ.” Chronologically, we reply, it must do no such thing; for the birth of Christ was not the introduction of the fifth kingdom, as will in due time appear. Here he overlooks almost the entire duration of the third division of the image, confounding it with the fourth, and giving no room for the divided state of the Grecian Empire as symbolized by the four heads of the leopard of chap. 7, and the four horns of the goat of chap. 8.

“Territorially,” continues Prof. C., “it [the fourth kingdom] should be sought in Western Asia, not in Europe; in general on the same territory where the first, second, and third kingdoms stood.” Why not in Europe, we ask? Each of the first three kingdoms possessed territory which was peculiarly its own. Why not the fourth? Analogy requires that it should. And was not the third kingdom a European kingdom? That is, did it not rise on European territory, and take its name from the land of its birth? Why not, then, go a degree further west for the place where the fourth great kingdom should be founded? And how did Grecia ever occupy the territory of the first and second kingdoms? Only by conquest. And Rome did the same. Hence, so far as the territorial requirements of the Professor are concerned, Rome could be the fourth kingdom as well as Grecia could be the third.

“Politically,” he adds, “it should be the immediate successor of Alexander's empire, . . . changing the dynasty, but not the nations.” Analogy is against him here. Each of the first three kingdoms was distinguished by its own peculiar nationality. The Persian was not the same as the Babylonian, nor the Grecian the same as either of the two that preceded it. Now analogy requires that the fourth kingdom, instead of being composed of a fragment of this Grecian Empire, should possess a nationality of its own, distinct from the other three. And this we find in the Romans, and in them alone. But,

3. The grand fallacy which underlies this whole system of misinterpretation, is the too commonly taught theory that the kingdom of God was set up at the first advent of Christ. It can easily be seen how fatal to this theory is the admission that the fourth empire is Rome. For it was to be subsequently to the division of that empire that the God of Heaven should set up his kingdom. But the division of the Roman Empire into ten parts was not accomplished until A. D. 483; consequently the kingdom of God could not have been set up nearly five hundred years before. Rome must not, therefore, from their stand-point, though it answers admirably to the prophecy in every particular, be allowed to be the kingdom in question. The position that the kingdom of God was set up in the days when Christ was upon the earth, must be maintained at all hazards.

Such is the ground on which our opponents seem, at least, to reason. And it is for the purpose of maintaining this theory, that our author dwindles down the third great empire of the world to the insignificant period of about eight years! For this, he endeavors to prove that the fourth empire was bearing full sway during a period when the providence of God was simply filling up the outlines of the third! For this, he presumes to fix the points of time between which we must look for the fourth, though the prophecy does not deal in dates at all, and then whatever kingdom he finds within his specified time, that he sets down as the fourth kingdom, and endeavors to bend the prophecy to fit it, utterly regardless of how much better material he might find outside of his little inclosure, to answer to a fulfillment of the prophetic record. Is such a course logical? Is the time, the point to be first established? No; the kingdoms are the great features of the prophecy; and we are to look for them; and when we find them, take them where they are. Let them govern the time, not the time govern them.

But that view, which is the cause of all this misapplication and confusion, is sheer assumption. Christ did not smite the image at his first advent. Look at it. When the stone smites the image upon its feet, it is dashed in pieces. Violence is used. The effect is immediate. The image becomes as chaff. And then what? Is it absorbed by the stone, and gradually incorporated with it? Nothing of the kind. It is blown off, removed away, as incompatible and unavailable material; and no place is found for it. The territory is entirely cleared; and then the stone becomes a mountain, and fills the whole earth. Now what idea shall we attach to this work of smiting and breaking in pieces? Is it a gentle, peaceful, and quiet work? or is it a manifestation of vengeance and violence? How did the kingdoms of the prophecy succeed the one to the other? It was through the violence and din of war, the shock of armies, and the roar of battle. “Confused noise, and garments rolled in blood,” told of the force and violence with which one nation had been brought into subjection to another. Yet all this is not called smiting or breaking in pieces.

When Persia conquered Babylon, and Greece Persia, neither of the conquered empires is said to have been broken in pieces, though crushed beneath the overwhelming power of a hostile nation. But when we reach the introduction of the fifth kingdom, the image is smitten with violence; it is dashed to pieces, and so scattered and obliterated that no place is found for it. And now what shall we understand by this? We must understand that here a scene transpires of so much more violence and force and power than the overthrow of one nation by another through the strife of war, that the latter is not worthy even of mention in connection with it. The subjugation of one nation by another by war, is a scene of peace and quietude, in comparison with that which transpires when the image is dashed in pieces by the stone cut out of the mountain without hands.

Yet what is this smiting of the image made to mean by the theory under notice? Oh, the peaceful introduction of the gospel of Christ! the quiet spreading abroad of the light of truth! the gathering out of a few from the nations of the earth, to be made ready through obedience to the truth for his second coming, and reign! the calm and unpretending formation of a Christian church—a church that has been domineered over, persecuted, and oppressed, by the arrogant and triumphant powers of earth, from that day to this! And this is the smiting of the image! this is the breaking of it into pieces, and violently removing the shattered fragments from the face of the earth! Was ever absurdity more absurd? Were ever two events more unlike? Had the object been to find two scenes the exact opposites of each other, it would have been fully met in the comparison of these two events; but that any one should seriously contend that these are one and the same thing, is one of the anomalies of human reasoning; or, rather, it is one of the unpardonable inconsistencies to which men will sometimes resort, to save a theory.

From this digression we return to the inquiry, Do the toes represent the ten divisions of the Roman Empire? We answer, Yes; because 1. The image of chapter 2, is exactly parallel with the vision of the four beasts of chapter 7. The fourth beast of chapter 7 represents the same as the iron legs of the image. The ten horns on the beast of course correspond very naturally, to the ten toes of the image; and these horns are plainly declared to be ten kings which should arise; and they are just as much independent kingdoms as the beasts themselves; for the beasts are spoken of in precisely the same manner; namely, as “four kings which should arise.” Verse 17. They do not denote a line of successive kings, but kings or kingdoms which exist contemporaneously; for three of them were plucked up by the little horn. The ten horns, beyond controversy, represent the ten kingdoms into which Rome was at last divided. 2. We have seen that in Daniel's interpretation of the image he uses the words king and kingdom, interchangeably, the former denoting the same as the latter. In verse 44, he says that “in the days of these kings, the God of Heaven shall set up a kingdom.” This shows that at the time the kingdom of God is set up there will be a plurality of kings existing contemporaneously. It cannot refer to the four preceding kingdoms; for it would be absurd to use such language in reference to a line of successive kings, since it would be in the days of the last king only, not in the days of any of the preceding, that the kingdom of God would be set up.

Here, then, is a division represented, and what have we in the symbol to indicate it? Nothing but the toes of the image. Unless they do it, we are left utterly in the dark as to the nature and extent of the division which the prophecy shows did exist. As the view that we are left in such uncertainty would cast a serious imputation upon the prophecy, we are held to the conclusion that the ten toes of the image denote the ten parts into which the Roman Empire was divided, between the years A. D. 356 and A. D. 483. These divisions were established respectively by the Huns, A. D. 356; Ostrogoths, 377; Visigoths, 378; Franks, 407; Vandals, 407; Suevi, 407; Burgundians, 407; Heruli, 470; Anglo-Saxons, 476; and Lombards, 483. This enumeration of the ten kingdoms is that given by Machiavel, in his History of Florence, lib. i, who is, says Dr. Hales, “the best, because the most unprejudiced, authority.” The dates are furnished by Bishop Lloyd; and the whole is approved by Bishop Newton, Faber, and Dr. Hales.